Tuesday, June 02, 2009

[gnosis] gnosticism, gnostics

It will take a man or woman of great perspicacity to see through Gnosis because it is a subtle, spiritual appeal to the intellectual mind, it encourages an attitude of outward gentility and tolerance in its devotees and casts any form of dogma or referral to a set of universal truths as blunt, brutal things, spouted by minions of a less transcended, more primitive being.

A young man [or woman] of intellect, thirsting for knowledge and answers to the whys and wherefores of life is going to be attracted to the mystic elements of gnosis and overly impressed by its long history, where he would be repelled by the take-it-or-leave-it dogma and narrowmindedness of the only manifestation of Christianity allowed to be made visible to a sceptical world, especially that vision projected by the fundamentalist American Right and exacerbated by fanatical, seemingly intolerant and inflexible disciples of weirdo sects.

Gnosis helps this perception along, ignoring the quite gentle nature of grass roots Christianity and instead emphasizing the hellfire and brimstone aspect, which is so far from an accurate reading of the synoptic gospels as to induce tears from that vast misrepresented and slandered group of ordinary men and women you never get to hear from.

Taking Gnosis to task casts the detractor as an unreasoning, narrow-minded brute, steeped in dogma and conversely, casts the Gnostic as an unharmful, gentle soul who believes in the fusion of all religion and would simply like to be allowed to get on with his own pursuit of spiritual ascendancy without coming under fire, a view quite appealing to a libertarian, for example. That the hellfire and brimstone detractors are their own worst enemies only lends validity to the image which the Gnostic seeks to project.

Christianity, in its visible form, visible to a non-believing wider world, I mean, has always meant the bloody Crusades, the Inquisition’s torture chambers, the moral crusaders, the intolerant bible bashers, the corrupt Church with its selling of pardons, child molesting and so on and so on. Literature, popular tradition and the fifth column within the Church-State nexus, have always perverted the true nature of the message and reinforced this image in people’s minds for two millennia now.

People like Jimmy Swaggart, Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise do nothing to dispel this.

Any PR agency, if it wanted, could do the same with Gnosis. Gathering some charismatic but slightly dodgy figures together to argue for Gnosis, this agency could then progressively reveal its flaws, ‘accidentally’ revealing child sacrifices, social destabilization, it’s connection with the kabbalistic and satanic and the corruption of its disciples. There’d be fisking on the net and exposes on TV. It could bring the most esoteric and opaque apologist for Gnosis onto a chat show with a less than intellectual audience and turn everybody off. It’s the oldest trick in the book - discrediting a movement and its devotees by means of tearing down strawmen.

Yet the Gnostics are left largely untouched.

What we have here is the most ancient of ongoing battles from far earlier than the relative newcomer, Christianity, back even before the ziggurats on the Babylonian plains, back to the dawn of time. Gnosis is correct in saying it has always existed and the Keepers of the Transcended Wisdom, they who come from the stars, from another dimension, have been at it since the earliest times.

Gary H. Kah, in "En Route to Global Occupation", Huntington House, 1991, wrote:

Gnosticism, the most effective and widely accepted form of pantheism, was more deceptive and clever than the others, developing the occult's only major counter explanation to the Message and Person of Christ. The Gnostics were the chief adversaries of the Apostle Paul and the early Church, relentlessly pursuing Christians wherever they went, long before the mystery religions even began to crumble.

The world has remained largely ignorant of this eternal war and the problem is that even scholastic Christians must admit that what the other side says does refer to historical events and what could well be truths, albeit selectively chosen, incorrectly interpreted, twisted and arranged to open a portal for one you really don’t want to have as your god. It’s a finely woven pantheistic synthesis of all religions and philosophical thought, the ‘big tent’ concept, thereby appealing to a far broader base than mere Christianity, Islam, Judaeism or any other single school of thought.

The concept of striving to reach the Light, of the perfectability of man to a state of Illumination, even draws people like technophiles under its canopy, using other-worldly but beautiful phraseology which creates a feeling, in earnest scholars, that there has to be something in this, doesn’t there?

As with the Masons, the down side is never mentioned to the Blue Orders, only the mystical aspects of transcendence.

Leaving Gnosis aside for one moment, it’s as well to know what satanism preaches, in all its manifestations, through Baal, Moloch, Kali, Ea, Ishtar, Matreya, Set, the Sumerian, the Assyrian – take your pick.

The Cult of Lucifer

Let’s dispel the illusion straight away peddled by those projecting themselves, by means of esoteric rhetoric, as historical scholars, that Satan and Lucifer are two separate entities. Satan is simply a derogatory term used by the detractors of the fallen Lucifer, especially by Christians. It does not refer to a separate entity in any way, except in non-biblical literature.

Luciferianism preaches:

1. Dualism or the dual nature of man which manifests itself in acts of philanthropy, balanced by atrocity.

2. That power passes to humans at the points of birth and death. That’s why an animal is bled over a human and the blood is drunk at the point of death. That animal can be human, the younger and ‘purer’ the better, hence the traffic in human female children.

3. That sexuality is far more than reproduction, it being tied in with the Sacred Feminin and so involves participation in ancient mystery rituals of sexual ‘celebration’, accompanied, at Grand Climax, by death of the victim.

4. That Man has been misled into thinking that the creator is ‘good’ whereas he is flawed and has brought into existence a flawed world with wars, suffering and horror. He allows these things to continue because the creator is bad, flawed – quite persuasive, yes?

5. That Man should not artificially place limits on his instincts and feelings - that if he is angry, it’s OK to kill, that if he feels lust, it’s OK to rape, that if he feels happy, it’s OK to sing, that if it’s necessary to climb higher, it’s OK to betray. It’s never mentioned that the longer one places no self-limits on oneself, the more bestial and the more easily enslaved one becomes by one’s own emotions, which are progressively more easily manipulated.

According to the satanists/luciferinans, the True God, Lucifer, draws man into a realization of the piece of divinity within him, the soul, the ‘divine spark’ and so, from the Tower of Babel through to modern technology, man must ignore the namby-pamby, flawed weakness of the false creator and his pathetic ‘faith, hope and charity’ and instead strive towards a new form of Man – a Nietzschean superman, with a divine king to inspire him, ultimately revealed as Lucifer, of course, the lightbearer, the bringer of true synthetic, relativistic wisdom.

Through the ensuing carnage, suffering, betrayal, desolation, personal despair and misery, all laid at the door of the false creator, Man throws off the shackles placed on him by a cynical god, becomes strong and perfects himself.

Also sprach Zarathustra was yet another example of this motif of false dualism which, if a significant number of people are fooled by it, can cause mayhem.

People do actually believe this stuff.

Gnosticism – views from within

In this I quote heavily from Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop):

The Gnostic concept of the world sounds a little different, ‘the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means, most Gnostic scriptures taking the form of myths, as distinct from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.’

So, in one fell swoop, the positivist philosophy I attacked the other day, all other forms of philosophy, Christianity plus any other form of understanding of the world not Gnostic in nature, is consigned to the scrapheap.

‘Gnostics hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another.

Genesis, according to the Gnostic, was a myth in declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a ‘fall’ of creation, resulting in the present corrupt state of the world’, a selective distortion of what Christianity actually says, a strawman in fact. Gnostics respond to their own strawman by saying that ‘this interpretation of the myth is false’.

‘The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. In the Gnostic world, there are many beings and one is called Sophia [or wisdom].

In the course of her journeys, Sophia came to emanate, from her own being, a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw.

This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God, the Demiurge, but was not and brought chaos. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence.

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God.
The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of “dualist”.

Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny.

Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament, human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own efforts.

Ignorance - whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities - is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God.’

This Christ is not Jesus of Nazareth, by the way but an entirely different being. Guess who? Remember, as a human, you are ignorant and only these Messengers of Light can lead you to perfection by going through the Inferno [fire] of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise. That ‘passing through the fire’ motif yet again.

Gnosis dispels other modes of thought as well:

‘Karma, at best, can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works and to worship the cosmos or nature or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.

Thus, Gnosis, with one stroke of the pen, eliminates eastern religions and Paganism and instead, institutes a mish-mash of religions and world movements into an all-in-one explanation, ultimately controlled by the ‘True God’.’

The Gnostic apologists state: ‘The God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism. One may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations.’

All eminently reasonable, yes? Appeals very much to the young philosopher who yearns to know about the cosmos and the meaning of life.

What is the gnostic view of ethics and morals?

‘If the words ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both’, an attractive view for those of a libertarian bent.

‘Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms.’

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole law, with no constraint whatsoever, except that which you impose on yourself.

‘Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a ‘being in the world, but not of the world’; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and wisdom of every individual ‘Gnostic’ to distil from these principles individual guidelines for their personal application.’

A practical application of this is that if you are angry with someone, you may strike him down and kill him; if you desire some girl, you may rape her, as there is no danger of non-salvation attached to your act; what you did is largely irrelevant in terms of you spiritually ‘finding yourself’.

The only constraint on such acts is if it impairs your spiritual journey upwards.

Like the myth of the Muslim 72 virgins, it’s a seductive, persuasive and pervasive world view, appealing to people on many levels, from the scholastic halls of learning to the gullible seeking for an answer, especially an easy, neat answer which ties up the loose ends and explains all, which is philosophy’s remit as well.

To embrace Gnosticism labels you as an august scholar, not least because it attracts those who would be august scholars.

Contrast that with Christianity and its seeming anomalies, heavily dependent on acceptance of a metaphysical plane and on belief as its driving force.

Christianity has its second side though – the caring ministry of practical help, support, charity and compassion, never mentioned by its detractors except for the ungracious rejoinder, ‘Well they don’t have a monopoly on compassion, do they?’

Question - if you were starving in an economic depression, would you rather go for relief to a Salvation Army soup kitchen, to a Gnostic discussion group or to a Luciferian ‘raped baby on the bonfire’ sacrificial ritual?

Which do you feel you’d get the most compassionate treatment from?

Gnosticism – views from without

From "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah

If Kabalism could be viewed as the occult counter-explanation of the Old Testament, Gnosticism, existing as a further development of Kabalism and taking into account Satan's "new problem" posed by the risen Christ, would serve as the main occult counterattack against the New Testament. Thus, Kabalism and Gnosticism combined, composed a type of occult parallel to the Old and New Testaments.

Gnosticism, although originally composed of Jewish occultists, rapidly gained Gentile followers until it soon became predominantly Gentile. As the priesthoods were forced to take on new forms, Gnosticism became a magnet for these occult adepts. Branches of Gnosticism represented the first significant secret societies of the post-resurrection era with various degrees or levels of initiation and the inner circle of initiates worshiping Lucifer.

From Albert Pike, ‘Morals and Dogma’:

"The Gnostics derived their leading doctrines and ideas from Plato and Philo, the Zend-avesta and the Kabalah,and the Sacred books of India and Egypt; and thus introduced into the bosom of Christianity the cosmological and theosophical speculations, which had formed the larger portion of the ancient religions of the Orient, joined to those of the Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish doctrines, which the New-Platonists had equally adopted in the Occident" (Morals and Dogma, 248).

Pike shows the connection: Kabbalah-Gnosticism-Templars-Masons-Satan. Madonna’s mocking of the cross in Moscow was but one manifestation of the interconnection.

"The Templars, like all other Secret Orders and Associations, had two doctrines, one concealed and reserved for the Masters . . . the other public . . . Thus they deceived the adversaries whom they sought to supplant." (Morals and Dogma, 817-818).

From "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah:

Gnosticism flourished through various offshoots such as the Manicheans of the third century, the Euchites of the fourth century, the Paulicans of the seventh century, and the Bogomils of the ninth century (Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Hawthorne, CA, 1924, p.32-34, 63).

It is not possible within the scope of this book to identify and define each branch of Gnosticism that has existed over the centuries, but the following teaching of the Bogomils will give us an idea of what beliefs the Knights Templars embraced before passing them on to Freemasonry.

‘God, the Supreme Father, has two sons, the elder Satanael, the younger Jesus. To Satanael, who sat on the right hand of God, belonged the right of governing the celestial world, but filled with pride, he rebelled against his Father and fell from Heaven. Then, aided by the companions of his fall, he created the visible world, image of the celestial, having like the other its sun, moon, and stars, and last he created man and the serpent which became his minister.

Later Christ came to earth in order to show men the way to Heaven, but His death was ineffectual, for even by descending into Hell He could not wrest the power from Satanael, i.e., Satan. This belief in the impotence of Christ and the necessity therefore for placating Satan, not only "the Prince of this world," but its creator, led to the further doctrine that Satan, being all-powerful, should be adored.’ (Ibid., 63).

Albert G. Mackey: Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

From Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocracy, Hawthorne, CA, 1933:

"Pike named the Order the New and Reformed Palladian Rite. Historian Edith Starr Miller describes it as neo-Gnosticism, "teaching that the divinity is dual and that Lucifer is the equal of Adonay (Ibid., 216-217). It is in fact Lucifer who is worshipped within this Rite of Freemasonry."

This comes from an article on the Priory of Sion and also seems relevant:

The Priory of Sion is a secret society whose roots are believed by some to go back to the 12th century but some believe the Priory can trace its heritage back to the 1st century AD. It was at this time that Ormus was converted to the Gnostic view of Christianity by Mark, a disciple of Jesus.

It was Ormus who founded a secret society, which united esoteric Christianity with the teachings of the pagan mystery schools. He adopted the symbol of a cross, surmounted by a rose, to symbolize the specifically pagan brand of Christianity he embraced. The symbol of a red or 'rosy' cross was later adopted by the Templars, while the cross with surmounting rose was embraced by the medieval Rosicrucians.

The Priory of Sion consisted of an inner circle of initiates, which controlled the Knights Templar from above. Whatever aim the Priory or Freemasons may have had formerly, their long-term goal today is referred to as "The Great Work of Ages" and consists of a plan to centralize power and impose a global dictatorship.


Call Gnostics what you like but do not call them innocent philosophers with the good of the world at heart. They have a specific agenda, just as do all other arcane and nefarious organizations.


Anonymous said...

You're loosing it, buddy.

Steve Hayes said...

Hmmm... I find myself in agreement with most of what you say about Gnosticism, but the Satanism / Luciferianism stuff I think is way over the top.

Anonymous said...

I was kind of following you until you quoted Edith Miller and called her a historian. And repeated her repeat of the Taxil hoax. So please check your facts, there is or was no such thing as Palladium Freemasonry. Faulty authorship will bring you down every time.

James Higham said...

Anon 1 - 'loosing', meaning 'losing' or to not have it any more, is an American misspelling which some Brits are beginning to emulate.

Steve - it's way over the top until you research it. Then it is mortifying.

Anon 2 - faulty authorship will bring you down every time, you say. You have just called an established author not an author and state palladium is no such thing. You offer no proofs of either but simply assert.

I'll help you out. It certainly doesn't exist today because it has metamorphosed into other facets of the movement.

Be careful with your slurs, Anon. It's always a good rule to check your facts first.

Anonymous said...

So you're losing it.

Deflecting the deflection back to you.


richard said...

the classic La Veyan religion of Satanism has nothing to do with hurting people or animal cruelty. there is no animal blood or human sacrifice. one of their rules says not to harm children, another says to kill no animal except for food. it also teaches respect for other people, unless they are harming you directly by hostile actions. their rituals may be a coustume drama but are not harmful to others. i would be confident in expecting to receive civilised treatment from a Satanist; they do NOT preach that it is OK to rape or betray. neither do they believe in a literal Devil, but merely use the devil as a symbol of their alleged enlightenment.

James Higham said...

Allow me to answer your welcome comments this way.

I have a blog and am of the blogosphere, which is another way of saying that our readers are largely secular, ‘a’religious and concerned with either the daily political issues [the visible politics], with homes, gardens and landscapes or with personal issues, e.g. the way they’ve been mistreated by the NHS.

This is to be expected. However, the moment someone posts what looks like an apology for Christianity, then in most bloggers’ minds, the image of the American Fundamentalist Right, the Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Swaggart and Copeland style of Christianity, let alone Jehovah’s Witnesses et al, looms large before their eyes.

This gets the back up of the average blogger who rediscovers a paganism or atheism inside himself he never thought was there and it bores the rest of you to tears. In other words, to put out any form of criticism of the sacred cows in the blogosphere is to be tarred with the same brush as those in the previous paragraph.

What if it is different to that though? What if the Christian world falls into these camps?

1. The Fundamentalist Outspoken just mentioned who give it a bad name in their stridency and wrong choices e.g. trying to teach Intelligent Design as some sort of head on clash with the other side inside the education process without fully understanding the other side and with education already having fallen to the other side;

2. The silent so called Church leadership who, in their silence, apart from occasional mumblings of ‘let’s all be kind to each other’, have fulfilled the Burkean maxim about good men doing nothing;

3. The vast majority of nominally and sometimes reasonably devout faithful, e.g. the Latin countries’ populaces [these billion plus are the true battleground at this time];

4. Those brought up in the Judaeo-Christian tradition [the West] who are the majority, adopting the vocabulary of that tradition and who are fairly easy-going and are focused on anything but religion in their daily lives;

5. The Scholars, the Apologists. Even within this group, the majority follow the dogma taught by their denominations and are wont to prove their scripture by means of quoting their scripture, a non-sequitur.

6. Lapsed Baddies. This group has been on the other side and some of us have even risen in ‘spiritual understanding’ within the occult disciplines before ‘seeing the light’, the three-card tricks and joining the hated deist faction, in mind if not in practice.

... continued in the next comment.

James Higham said...

Continued from previous comment:

It is this latter group which needs to be swatted first, as they have a tendency to fisk and debunk in a non-religious, rationalist way the very people who spawned them. That’s me. On the other hand, they stay alive [till now anyway] due to their overall irrelevance in these times we live [and possibly with a little help from above ☺].

The majority of blog readers know nothing of the raging battle going on but the Adepts on the other side – the gnostic, satanist, pagan and mystery school ‘Brass’ know very well what is being attempted in these posts and are laughing up their sleeve, as no one is going to initially accept the sort of outrageous things posted in these articles. It’s another failed attempt to stop the juggernaut consuming and crushing society.

So when a commenter says, ‘I can accept much of what you write but when you start speaking of satan and sacrifices, then that’s where I jump off,’ then that’s understandable. I’m on no particular crusade and I’m not even religious in real life – my friends can confirm that. These posts are here and here they sit.

However, it gets up my nose to see a mode of thought, any mode of thought, even gnosis, misrepresented and that’s why I took particular care not to misrepresent Gnosis but quoted from its sources. If the accompanying commentary was Christian in origin, the source material for Gnosis was not. Also, you’ll notice I rarely use scripture as support material.

You see, it doesn’t take all that much research but it does take an open mind to debunk the ‘mystery religions’ and reveal their ultimate source. All detectives see recurrent phrases, recurrent preoccupations and a certain modus operandi which are highly indicative. The evolutionary scientist and the archaeologist do exactly the same. From certain key fragments and a lot of study, the whole can be reconstructed and postulated.

I never wrote that gnosis was satanism. I wrote, and I quote:

Leaving Gnosis aside for one moment, it’s as well to know what satanism preaches …

The Gnostic concept of the world sounds a little different …

This post was designed to show that gnosis was no way as innocent as it likes to portray itself and that its links to satanism are well established:

1. In the words of the gnostics themselves [not my words]:

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God.

So, if Jehovah is the Demi-urge, the false creator god and if his angels are Archons, then who must be the arcane True God? There is only one other, the one who always has Opposed, within satanism, gnosticism, judaeism, the kabbalah and a host of splinter religions, the one with so many names – Set, Ishtar, Ea, Lucifer, Moloch, Baal etc. etc. Maitreya, for example, as presented by Share International.

2. The constant talk of dualism, under the umbrella of pantheism [thereby aligning themselves with the classics] is pure Lucifer-speak.

3. Pike and the other satanists were perfectly happy to accept the gnostics as fellow travellers. Look at the literature yourself to see this. It’s interesting that Pike and I would find no argument with each other either except that we acknowledge different deities.

... continued next comment.

James Higham said...

Continued form previous comment:

The attempts to pull the wool over the public’s eyes is disingenuous. The risible attempts to say the two statues of liberty are not arcane symbols, to say that the ancient mystery gods do not stem from the one source by means of presenting a pseudo-history, to attempt to say that there was not a near perfect occult realm almost in place before the flood, to say that the pesky resurrection in 0 AD did not upset the applecart, is disingenuous.

Has anyone ever stopped to think why their side needs to remain arcane, robed and hooded but why the Christian side has no need to hide its light under a bushel and when it does – is highly suspect?

Even that is an excellent question.

This post was directed to one person only, as I told my mate. It was never intended to convince the majority of readers but to be placed on record for the erudition of one particular person from the other side, to bring out, expose and examine the teachings of the other side and show them in the cold light of day.

Finally, why me? Why on this blog? Has it crossed anyone’s mind that there might be one or two bloggers who have spent a lifetime studying, just as much as any 32nd degree on the other side and if those people prefer personal obscurity, their own little touch of the arcane, then they rely on their writings instead to get across their way of thinking?

Adepts on the other side have no monopoly on wisdom, you know.

It is not the purpose of the blog though. This blog has a different purpose – to show anything and to allow anything to be presented [guest posts] which is well argued and shines a light on what’s going on in the world. It’s a ‘magpie’ blog, presenting bits of this, bits of that. This post is only one of many elements. Now I’ll get back to preparing Friday’s British Beauty contest. ☺

Richard - la Vey may have postulated that but you know very well what is done in the covens.

Satanic Calendar

richard said...

"Richard - la Vey may have postulated that but you know very well what is done in the covens."

not really, because i wasn't there. i know what he wrote in the satanic Bible. it seemed to be common-or-garden libertarianism, a respect for the individual, coupled with some (to me) childish rituals.

"Has anyone ever stopped to think why their side needs to remain arcane, robed and hooded but why the Christian side has no need to hide its light under a bushel and when it does – is highly suspect?"

there has been 50 years of criminal abuse, physical and sexual, of children in the care of the Catholic Church in Ireland. many thousands of cases, covered up and/or ignored by ecclesiastical and political institutions. according to La Vey, no cruelty to children or animals, or coercion of adults, is to be tolerated. what the RC church in ireland hides under it's bushel is a horrible stinking pit of darkness, far worse than anything so far discovered from role-playing satanists or any other institution. the tally of victims re. clerical abuse is on record. however, the hypothetical, rumoured, urban-myth of "satanic abuse" is nothing more than hearsay.

James Higham said...

Yes, Richard, that's true and you know the Catholic Church is riddled with the other side. From P2 to Opus Dei, the Catholic church has been plagued from its inception.

You know the quote about where G-d builds a church, there the devil builds his chapel [or words to that effect].

richard said...

i don't like the reference to G-d because Christ (the Word made flesh according to St. John) suggested that God should be refeered to ad "Abba", the familiar term for "father". nor do i personally believe in God, gods, angels, demons, jinns, pixies, or Rumplestiltskin. i regard religious fanatics as insane, and prefer not to waste my time (or, to be fair, theirs) in discourse on any topic pertaining to belief. science, philosophy, truth and justice do not need unverifiable 3rd parties such as heavenly beings in order to benefit mankind. have a nice day.

James Higham said...

Further reading: